Yesterday, it was reported that Sepang police chief Supt Mohd Yusoff Awang said the case against an UMNO Youth leader who called for the abolition of the Chinese vernacular school system, has been classified as a civil matter.
With respect, this is absolute nonsense. How can this be? We have a case almost on point in which charges were brought against a Member of Parliament for uttering somewhat similar words in Parliament itself.
In Public Prosecutor v Mark Koding the accused, then a Member of Parliament, was charged with sedition for a speech he made in Parliament where he questioned the policy of Government in allowing Chinese and Tamil schools to continue in this country. He advocated the closure of Chinese and Tamil schools and suggested that if such closure contravened Article 152 of the Federal Constitution, then the Constitution should be amended in the interest of the people and the nation.
Mark Koding was later convicted for this offence after a full trial,
I call upon the Attorney-General to explain. Are there double standards here?
If a Member of Parliament could have been hauled up and charged for sedition for saying that, why not the UMNO politician?
This is a very serious matter. Is this not another classic example of the abuse of discretion when it comes to the use of the Sedition Act? Why is it used against some and not others in cases which present similar facts?
Are we not entitled, in the absence of any reasonable explanation to the contrary, to say that this is evidence of selective prosecution?